Starmer’s speech finally gave us all a reason to commit to the struggle

What will we get to show for it?” These were the most important words in Keir Starmer’s speech to the Labour conference. He was rightly putting himself in the minds of the voters.

It was a tacit acceptance that Labour, in its obsession with permanently nailing the blame for a “painful” Budget next month onto the Conservatives, has not yet addressed the “why” question. He laid out a decent first draft of what the “long-term gain” will be to make the “short-term pain” worth it.

To ecstatic applause from his audience, the prime minister rattled off the potential prize: “Higher economic growth so living standards rise in every community; our NHS facing the future – waiting lists at your hospital down; safer streets in your community; stronger borders; more opportunities for your children; clean British energy powering your home.” It was a welcome, overdue change of gear from the “doom and gloom” which threatened to undermine business confidence and thus Starmer’s number one mission of economic growth.

He argued that the “light at the end of this tunnel” would be reached more quickly if tough, long-term decisions were taken now. In effect, he pleaded with the public to join him in this “shared struggle” by accepting unpopular decisions. That won’t be easy to achieve because, he warned, they will include new pylons overground to secure cheaper electricity; new homes in every community to tackle the housing crisis; and some communities living close to new prisons.

The speech was deliberately light on policy. There was a promise of guaranteed housing for veterans, young care leavers and victims of domestic abuse; a new growth and skills levy to reform the apprenticeship system; and confirmation of the open secret that GB Energy would be based in Aberdeen to help cement the union.

All good stuff, but Starmer’s address would have been lifted by a grade A policy announcement – a golden nugget from the Budget or, after speaking movingly about care workers, including his own sister, he could have unveiled the “fair pay agreement” for care workers that is in the Whitehall works. That would have answered the legitimate criticism that the government has done very little on social care; surprisingly, it has yet to set up the cross-party commission designed to reach a consensus on reform.

I liked the personal stuff about his working-class family and his childhood. He deployed it well to argue that every child should get the opportunities he enjoyed (and his brother did not) to break the class ceiling.

There were plenty of nods to the former Tory voters Labour won over in July – some of whom already have buyer’s remorse, according to the opinion polls. Labour will need their support to win a second term.

Starmer also accepted that concerns about immigration were legitimate but outlined his vision of “our reasonable, tolerant country” and, in a powerful section on the riots, vowed he would “never let a minority of violent, racist, thugs terrorise our communities”.

The PM borrowed more from the George Osborne playbook, promising a crackdown on benefit fraud, a favourite Tory tune, and called for a “long-term plan,” echoing the “long-term economic plan” Osborne and David Cameron promised us about one million times.

But he also had to reassure his own tribe, pledging that Labour would rebuild public services and protect working people “in a Labour way”. Filling the hole in the public finances will be “shared fairly” – another hint the wealthy will have to do the heavy lifting.

There were still plenty of attacks on the Tories, who he claimed had offered “the politics of easy answers”. In contrast, he would not offer “false hope”.

Fair enough, after the Tories left the public finances in such a mess – though I raised an eyebrow when Starmer said: “The time is long overdue for politicians to level with you about the trade-offs this country faces.” That should have happened at the election, but Labour was just as complicit as the Tories in what the Institute for Fiscal Studies rightly called a “conspiracy of silence”.

The speech was strong enough to regain some ground and steady Labour’s ship after the damaging headlines about freebies and Downing Street infighting. Starmer vowed he would not be “distracted” by his critics and argued his five “national missions” would protect Labour “from the whims of Westminster, making sure that we don’t get blown off course”. But that will happen only if he provides strong leadership to give those missions lift-off and booster rockets. It’s early days but they seem stuck on the launch pad.

Starmer’s core message was that change will be hard and will take time. He pleaded for “patience” but his problem is that voters will want to see progress more quickly than it is possible to deliver it.

While he started to answer the “why” question, Starmer did not really address the “how” one. That will be for the Budget on 30 October – and the answer will probably determine whether his government succeeds or fails.